Talk:Squad Members Guide (Mass Effect 2)
User Guide It's a user guide. It isn't suppose to be factual nor informative, but gives you options on what pairings worked well for that user. Deleting this is almost like saying you should delete the Mass Effect 2 Guide since each assignment page already has information about how to complete it. --Lord0din69 07:15, March 11, 2010 (UTC) Purpose? What exactly is the purpose of this article? One can just check the character's respective pages for this info. Vegnas 16:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC) So that a person doesn't have to check each character's respective pages for this info. 17:01, February 18, 2010 (UTC) : This page has a lot of potential, an overview of every squad member's abilities is handy. Yes I agree it was annoying to have to check each squad member's pages individually for details about bonus powers when I was deciding on which bonus power to take. Adding in the weapons proficiencies of each member somehow, would make this page even better. Dch2404 17:12, February 18, 2010 (UTC) I see. However you could type in the power and get the information. As it stands, all of this is redundant info. Vegnas 17:40, February 18, 2010 (UTC) : Typing in overload does not show me which squad member has that power. As it stands, this page is as redundant as Powers. 17:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :: Well, my point was that overviews are good in order to avoid the constant re-searching individual pages to find out individual stats (sorry I didn't make that clear, my bad). And anonymous above does have a point about the Powers page being technically redundant too. I'm in favour of keeping the page, expanding it to look like the Powers page (with the glitzy icons), and possibly renaming it to something like "Squad Members Overview". Technically this page is now not redundant with the addition of the weapons proficiencies information, which is not on individual character pages. Dch2404 17:53, February 18, 2010 (UTC) Deletion .02$ I agree with the deletion nomination. Twilsemail 17:34, February 18, 2010 (UTC) : I disagree. It's annoying to check each character individually in the game or on this wiki. Also, if this is redundant, isn't the Powers page also redundant? 17:38, February 18, 2010 (UTC) ::I also disagree. Heck, Samara's page doesn't even mention her weapons. There's also a considerable difference in intent between the individual pages and a comparison chart such as this. Individual power/companion pages are for details on that power/companion. The Power (and this) page is for comparing the classes/companions. --DarkJeff 18:01, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :::I support the deletion. I'm concerned about this spawning more and more comparison pages when we have the information recorded elsewhere already for people to check. --Tullis 06:10, February 27, 2010 (UTC) :::Actually, scratch that. What's really bothering me is that it's just sort of sitting there. It's not an article, it's just a table that looks like it belongs in a guide. Instead of merging into Powers, where it doesn't really belong either, couldn't we make it an appendix to the Mass Effect 2 Guide and turn this into a redirect? --Tullis 06:38, February 27, 2010 (UTC) I like having reference pages so when I want information like this, I don't have to go to several different pages. So I'm not in favor of deletion. But I do think that table is backwards. Maybe it's just me, but having the squaddies listed vertically and the powers horizontally would be much easier visually for comparison. Unless of course you are used to reading vertically.--Karstedt 06:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC) : I don't think this table really merits an article by itself, but I'm not sure merging it into the ME2 guide proper is a good idea. That guide right now is devoted exclusively to a walkthrough of the main game; 'statistical' gameplay information like weapons upgrades and damages have their own pages. Since we already have specialty guides such as the class-specific guides, the upgrades guide and the morality guide, why don't we just make a 'Squad Members Guide (Mass Effect 2)' and put that information there? It could then form the nucleus of another specialty guide discussing statistical information and squad member usage strategies. My own two cents... UERD 10:32, March 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me.--Karstedt 18:41, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Deletion again? Why is this page up for deletion again? I know the stated reasons but if you disagree with how the article is written, you should re-write it or put up the Cleanup tag (as I already have and the guide has shot up in quality since then). This article serves a useful purpose and there is no one other page with all this information (which is the criteria for deletion stated). If there was another (one) page with all these criteria then I'm sure not many people would care. Finally a comparison page is useful, just like it is for the weapons, though a comparison and an indepth guide (which this page sort of gives) is more useful. Bastian964 00:01, March 9, 2010 (UTC) : So, are we taking this ol' article out behind the barn and putting her out of her misery? Since the 'delete' tag was put up, Bastian's comment has been the only one concerning deletion. I don't think the guide needs to be deleted; it provides useful information and has expansion potential (e.g. squad member specific mechanics, such as the weaponry damage reduction compared to Shepard). More importantly, though, we haven't heard anything from the pro-deletion users, which makes it hard to have a discussion about whether or not to delete this article. I'd give it another week, and if nobody has anything to say the tag should probably be removed. UERD 05:50, March 11, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree with UERD. If this article was expanded it would provide a lot of useful information at a glance. The chart of weapon proficiencies is useful if putting a squad together. That is just one example. I believe with a little work and a few more details, this would make a great guide. Lancer1289 March 11, 2010 06:00 (UTC) :::Maybe this article should keep squad pairings to a minimum :P but the Insanity pairing of Miranda and Grunt is pretty effective and generally useful CsAtlantis 03:29, March 12, 2010 (UTC) "if you disagree with how the article is written, you should re-write it or put up the Cleanup tag" I agree with you here. Dch2404 22:05, March 13, 2010 (UTC) : I'm taking down the tag. Since it was put up, six people have voiced their support for keeping/improving the article, while none have stepped in to disagree with or argue against this position. By the way, I don't think ME2 has 'too many guides', given that the first ME has at least 21 separate pages and ME2 has 12 right now. All the guides do need extensive fact-checking and clean-up, but they each fulfill a pretty specific niche. UERD 18:55, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Page information and higher standard of quality I wanted to add that this page has some good information. However, a lot of the talk of strategy is completely subjective and is mostly based on bringing a "balanced" team in which there is a combat specialist, tech specialist, and biotic specialist. Specifically the squad pairings section. The usefulness of the pairings suggested is highly suspect in my view, and honestly I would find them completely useless. The solution would be to write about all 69 possible pairings, and that would be highly impractical. This page should be held more to the standard of the class guides, such as they are, in which they give the most information so that the reader can make informed decisions rather than following exactly what is said. To start with I say completely eliminate the Squad Pairing section. The reader should be able to take the information about each member and combine it with the mob strategies to construct a useful team of their own. —ArmeniusLOD 07:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC) : I agree. UERD 09:29, April 1, 2010 (UTC) :: They do kind of depend on the player class.....probably can trim it i guess, maybe leave say 1 suggested pairing for insanity? CsAtlantis 13:51, April 20, 2010 (UTC) :: I think that suggested squad parings should be mentioned in each squad member's section (for example, Miranda's synergy with Grunt's already-high health is noted in her entry). I think that's the best way to suggest parings (and to move the good-quality existing parings). One of the problems with having the parings section is that it's more or less an invitation to add more, which is the issue we're dealing with to begin with. :: If nobody objects, I'd like to remove the section in about a week, proof the guide, and then remove the cleanup tag. If anyone has an issue with this, we can discuss alternatives here. UERD 03:20, April 25, 2010 (UTC) :::A better idea would be to use a sandbox then just removing the information. That way people can still see the information and you can still work on it. Lancer1289 04:07, April 25, 2010 (UTC) Tali Mistake Um,doesn't Tali only have Tech skills?Except the fact that she can use a shotgun,she has no combat skills whatsoever.I didn't want to modifiy this until I get some responses on if this is right or not. You're right, Tali only has Tech powers so her specialty should be listed as just "Tech". It's also worth noting that Legion only has Tech powers and so its specialty should be changed, too. Tali's no.1 fan 20:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Kasumi??? Shouldnt this page be edited to incorporate info on Kasumi?Sgt. j-man 07:20, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :You mean edited further? In addition to the Kasumi section that is in the Squad Member Overview, and all the Kasumi info in the table? SpartHawg948 07:26, June 12, 2010 (UTC) : :Yes. Sgt. j-man 07:36, June 12, 2010 (UTC) ::I see. Well that answer was a little... vague. What exactly needs to be there that isn't currently? SpartHawg948 07:37, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Same question, what else could be added at this point that isn't already there? Lancer1289 07:38, June 12, 2010 (UTC) :::Crap. Sorry, I failed sooo hard right now. Forget I said anything. I thought she wasnt in the article. Damn I need more coffee. Adding Liara So, here's a question: Do we want to add Liara to this? Obviously, with the new DLC she is a squad member, but it's only for one mission. I wouldn't be averse to adding her, but we do need to make note of this fact, not just plop Liara info in with the others. I mean, even Zaeed and Kasumi have it noted that they're only available via DLC, even though you can use them on every mission in the game (one you have them on your squad, that is). SpartHawg948 05:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm that is a good question. Since she is a squad member, but has more of an impact than Wilson, who is a squad member in Prologue: Awakening, I'd say that Liara should have a place of her own. LotSB is a big pack and Liara is a squad member for a good portion of it. So I'd ahve to say that adding her, with a note that says she is only a squad member in LotSB, seems fine to me. Lancer1289 12:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC) Proxy Power Usage I think it's worth mentioning that manually using a squad member's power will proxy it through your line-of-sight to the target. As an example, you can hide over-zealous squad members far back from a fight if they keep dying to dangerous enemies (YMIR mechs), and still make use of their cooldown powers. Rather than being just a simple gameplay tip, I think this would add value to the article, because it explains an underlying mechanic of how squad members function. FarmerBob12 00:09, December 11, 2010 (UTC) :I believe that information falls under something that should be under the "General Informaiton" section, probably in a section of its own. No objections as I also believe this should be there. Lancer1289 01:04, December 11, 2010 (UTC) ::I stuck a few sentences into the General Info Combat section. If you can think of a better way to phrase the information, please do. FarmerBob12 01:23, December 11, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah that kind of needed its own paragraph which is now done. Lancer1289 01:33, December 11, 2010 (UTC) I'm not 100% sure, but is Jack's Shockwave the only power that isn't proxied? Tali's no.1 fan 22:33, February 18, 2011 (UTC) :I'll ask that again. Tali's no.1 fan 22:00, April 2, 2011 (UTC) Squad Member Pairings Is it possible for this section of the main page be updated to include every possible squad pairing, including those with Liara? I'd do it myself but a) it's disorienting and b) it's been some time since I last played and the ones I know of are already added on. H-Man Havoc 02:50, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Power Damage Penalties Correct me if I'm wrong, but would I be right to mention that squad members suffer damage penalties when using powers as well as weapons? The best proof of this is to use Samara's Reave or Tali's Energy Drain and then look at the Squad menu. For me, Tali's shields should have increased from 375 to 695 when using Area Drain, instead they increased to 631. Samara's health also did not increase as much as it should have when using Area Reave. However, I'm not sure whether the enemies I've been using these powers on when testing this out had enough shields etc for the powers to drain. Could someone offer their opinion? If squad members do suffer power damage penalties I think it had ought to be mentioned in this article. (Furthermore, if they suffer damage penalties I think its pretty inconsiderate of Bioware to give false power stats for squad members in the squad menu.) Tali's no.1 fan 22:08, February 18, 2011 (UTC) :After comparisons of squad damage vs Shepard damage I think I was wrong to trust the squad menu. Tali's no.1 fan 16:16, April 20, 2011 (UTC) Consistency please In Mordin's section: Neural Shock can also be useful as crowd control ... but is somewhat redundant to the arguably more useful Cryo Blast. and later on: At lower difficulty levels you can use Cryo Blast ... but Incinerate and Neural Shock will prove to be more useful. This is not an argument. State one fact and hold to it. Perj 13:30, June 3, 2011 (UTC) :So what is the problem with stating something, and then saying that something else may be more useful. Remember that everyone plays differently so not every power will be good for everyone. Suggesting something different is not a bad thing, but rather a good one. Lancer1289 16:30, June 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I think Perj's point was that it was first said that Cryo Blast would be more useful than Neural Shock, but later on it is said that Neural Shock would be more useful than Cryo Blast. Therefore: Contradiction. Nothing wrong with stating one may be more useful than the other. But you should be consistant in what you say. Tali's no.1 fan 13:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC) :::That isn't a contradiction, it's merely stating that Cryo Blast can be useful, but Neural Shock and Incinerate can be more so and you should make use of them as well based on what you are doing. Removing information like that doesn’t sit right with me one bit as it removes viable alternatives. I have since readded the information since it isn't a contradiction, but merely stating something is useful, but something else can be more so. Lancer1289 14:59, June 10, 2011 (UTC) ::::Yes, but look earlier in Mordin's section. It says "Neural Shock can also be useful as crowd control ... but is somewhat redundant to the arguably more useful Cryo Blast" (as stated by Perj). Then later it says Cryo Blast can be used for crowd control, but Incinerate and Neural Shock will prove more useful. The two statements at separate points in the section seem confusing and contradictory, as if one was added later than the other, by a different person. Do you see what I mean? Tali's no.1 fan 20:38, June 10, 2011 (UTC) :::::In any case I'm not sure I like the idea of saying vaguely that something can be useful and then saying equally vaguely that something else could be an alternative. I think a better idea would be to state the merits and limitations of the powers and let the reader make their mind up from that. Would that be a better idea? Tali's no.1 fan 13:30, June 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Especially since Cryo Blast and Neural Shock are so similar in function. Tali's no.1 fan 16:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC) Syntax and Formatting There are several instances in this guide where parentheses are used, particularly for asides, that seem to be somewhat confusing. A particular example is the reference to Zaeed under Garrus's section, i.e. "Garrus is one of the earliest-obtainable squadmates (along with Zaeed) capable of using sniper rifles and assault rifles..." This might better read "earliest-obtainable squadmates, along with Zaeed, who are capable of using sniper rifles and assault rifles". This may sound petty but I find that it reads much better this way. I'm not trying to start an argument or editing war so I'm putting this under talk to try and gauge other opinions. If no one else agrees with me, then I'll just shut up. -- Scuba.steve.esq 18:46, August 13, 2011 (UTC) Add squadmate health and shields? Just suggesting it might be a good idea to list the default and maximum health and shields for each squaddy, taking into account class powers, Miranda's squad bonus, upgrades and powers. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 11:05, July 24, 2012 (UTC) Thane & Zaeed In the section explaining Thane & Zaeed synergy, there's this statement: However, if we refer to the final battle preparation section, it's only mentioned that only Grunt, Garrus, and Zaeed were the "strong defenders". So, taking both Thane & Zaeed against the Collectors in the Final Mission shouldn't really affect the defending group; rather, this statement should be applied/added to the Grunt/Garrus/Zaeed combination instead. Now, if that statement was added solely due to Zaeed's inclusion in the squad, the same statement should also be added to any squadpair containing one of Grunt/Garrus/Zaeed. And that's too much a repetition, IMHO. So: I propose to strike out that statement outright. [ [[User:Pepoluan|'pepoluan']] ''talk'' ] 18:43, July 4, 2017 (UTC) *More than two weeks have passed, and no one provided an "against" position, so I'm striking out the sentence. [ [[User:Pepoluan|'pepoluan']] ''talk'' ] 05:47, July 23, 2017 (UTC) Miranda & Jacob While there's arguably nothing wrong with this section as far as actual information goes (i.e. stating that Miranda and Jacob work well as a pairing), I find it extremely verbose and hard to read. In fact, part of me is starting to wonder whether it wasn't written as a joke, considering how over-the-top the language is. There's also a whole bit that tries to justify Miranda and Jacob as the "canon" pairing for a "canon" Shepard (who is, according to the author, an Infiltrator?) which isn't terribly relevant for the purpose of the guide. I would suggest that the entire section should be trimmed and edited for readability. Nilfalasiel (talk) 09:24, May 9, 2018 (UTC)